The Excellency of Saddam Hussein and His Leadership (Please Debunk)

Dear ATS here is a researched essay on the good things about Saddam and his once prosperous Iraq. As you’ll see there are rather a lot of them.
It’s surprising what slips through our privately owned mass media, and the political conspirators who (sometimes openly) admit to controlling it.
Yet (unlike a real dictatorship) the information is still available for the minority in our democracy who have the time (or good fortune) to come
across it.
The tragedy that transpires is that in name of bringing democracy to a country where a majority wants to stone women to death, we have destroyed a
good system, one at least better than any they can bring them divided selves, and which our foreign policy could also respect (if indeed it’s
worthy of respect by anyone at all).

Saddam brought Iraq…
92% Literacy news.bbc.co.uk...
93% Access to free healthcare (something many Americans don’t have), and up until 1991 it was of a Western Standard and envy of the Middle East.
news.bbc.co.uk...

(P.S The rise in Iraqi life expectancy since 1975 gives the illusion it somehow improved in 2004 in 2005) this is created by the fact the data
includes life expectancy from 2000, 2001, 2002, and pre invasion 2003.
Iraqi Health spending may be greater than 2002 but there is vastly more work, over half their doctors have now fled Iraq (sometimes they get shot for
not curing a patient) and supplies are low (Iraqi hospitals frequently go without any aesthetic) partly because the forced democracy is far more
corrupt than anything Saddam ever put up with.

As well as access to free compulsory education he also brought subsidised university education, subsidised food, petrol, water (water obviously being
very important in the Middle East).
Source 1: www.dayafterindia.com...

Then health and education, including study abroad, is free for all Iraqis. Even two months ago, when the war clouds made Iraq cash-strapped,
the government heavily subsidised food and made it practically free. Other basic needs like garments are practically free.

Among U.S. occupation czar Paul Bremer’s free market oriented orders was number 30, issued in September 2003 and still in force. It lowered
the base wage in public enterprises (where most permanently-employed Iraqis work) to $35 a month and ended subsidies for food and housing.

Anyway
As dictator Saddam Hussein also brought political stability to Iraq for over 24 years where about 23 governments had failed in the 36 years before
1968, I say over 25 years because Saddam played a very prominent role ever since the Ba’th party came to power by kicking out a extreme Muslim
Fundamentalist government in a 1968 coup (i.e. his role spans 35 years). He was (in my view rightfully) backed by the CIA
1. www.hartford-hwp.com...
2. www.informationclearinghouse.info...
3. www.fantompowa.net...

This is because in those days the CIA more effectively opposed Muslim Fundamentalists rather than tell them to get elected like the anti-Sunni
sectarian Malki government did, and which even now is corrupting Iraq’s police, telling them to kill innocent civilians for the crime of being born
in the wrong sect. But hay they’re democratically elected!!! Too bad they’re a bunch bigots incapable of running the country!

Secularism…
Under Saddam the Ba’th Party provided Iraq Secular leadership en.wikipedia.org...
As you’ll see he greatly improved women’s rights, and also became the first to remove backward Sharia Law (you know where you get to stone women
to death for adultery).
Also see Saddam’s Modernization Programme to reduce ethnic tensions, and expand the economy:
en.wikipedia.org...

Women were allowed to where Western clothing, makeup ect. (Technically they still can to day but they can randomly get abducted and disembowelled by
the terrorist fanatics were liberated from Saddam’s ever so horrid police).

We hear that the Arabs are unease about the Kurdish autonomy !!! That tells me that the people in "New Iraq" are worse than Saddam Hussein
towards Kurds... Saddam Hussein signed the Kurdish autonomy agreement by himself on 11th of March 1970 !

This was on the condition that armed Kurdish separatist militants stop crossing into Iraq and massacring civilians. Unfortunately the deal fell
through when Iran decided it would bribe the Kurds to cause trouble for Saddam being an ally of America!!!

2. Saddam gave Iran a section of the river that runs between the two countries on the condition they stop bribing the Kurds to cause trouble.
Sadly Iran did not keep it’s end of the bargain (although maybe it did and the Turks bribed the Kurds) either way the Kurds continued to get bribed
and armed, and the Iraqis were convinced Iran was behind it. This caused Saddam to launch an offensive against Iran to get the land he had just given
them 6 months before back. This was the start of the Iran Iraq war, a war which cost over a million lives mostly because America (and it’s western
European allies) were scared that Saddam might actually beat the Iranians and become “too powerful” because of this we sold weapons to both sides,
and allowed ourselves to get money greedy in the process; causing both sides to resort to ever more brutal weapons e.g. chemical; and that’s why so
many died in that Iran-Iraq war. Source 1:www.dkosopedia.com...

Despite this, for a period starting in 1985, the United States sold weapons to Iran in addition to Iraq. This sparked the 1986-1988
Iran-Contra Affair in Washington.

China sold weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, but then the U.S. and its allies helped both sides too and the U.S. covertly sold
arms to Iran.

This is link gives a Very interesting insight into the details of the Iran-Iraq rule, in particular how the Iraqi invasion was directly
encouraged by then U.S president Jimmy Carter www.consortiumnews.com... (not that; unlike selling weapons to both sides, is
necessarily a bad thing).

3. The Anfal Campaign: With a people in Iraq fighting with Iraq’s Iranian enemy, armed by an Iranian enemy, and openly proclaiming to be
Iraq’s enemy Saddam Hussein reluctantly gave the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds the go ahead…

However It is true that Iraq used gas against the Iranian soldiers just as Iran used it against Iraqis.
And it is true (Iraqi gas or not) many Kurds died in the Anfal campaign because many villages siding with the Iranian Iraq enemy were indeed levelled
by the Iraqi military (conventionally).
But I’ve have had the extraordinary privilege of discussing with one former member of Iraq’s Ba’th Party why, in particular the Anfal campaign
was so brutal. Turns out the reason is quite obvious. The Kurdish fighters could not be arrested by a conventional police force because they were
armed and fighting with the Iranians. Meanwhile because Iraq was having to fight an Iran covertly supported by the west, because war is costly, and
Iran Iraq war had been long, Iraq simply did not have enough precision weapons to carry out precision bombing. Therefore in the interests of natural
survival they were forced to resort to brutal techniques.
America had started to secretly supply both sides in order to prevent either Iraq or Iran wiping each other out.
Google: Iran-Contra affair en.wikipedia.org...
This was actually supposed to serve Western interests by not making either side too powerful. Basically if it hadn’t been for allied weapons Iran
would have long been a colony of Iraq. True Saddam might have the atomic now, but at least we know he would never use if he would find out whether
hell existed (the hard way). After all he never used biological weapons in 1991, and later disarmed Iraq of them.

How Much Brutality?
The unchallenged (not least by the U.S) Kurds have alleged that up to 183,000 Kurds were killed in the Anfal Campaign… www.qantara.de...

"There have been some 183,000 Kurdish casualties during 20 years of war," said Ghobadi.

During the campaign, more than 183,000 people died,
including 5,000 from the city of Halabja.

Funny out of all the alleged victims they don’t seem to have found that many bodies (to date).

en.wikipedia.org... Facts on the Fact Sheet appear to have been those gathered by US Senate committee
investigations.[1]
The remains 113 Kurdish women and children (2/3 of were in teens) have been uncovered near Samawah.[2]
Discovery of mass grave sites in Iraq has been done through the analysis of satellite imagery. This has 18 suspected sites, two of which are excavated
having 28 and 10 adult males.[3]
3,115 corpses uncovered in Mahaweel is one of the largest found (11/2003).[4]
2,000 corpses found in Hillah.[5]
Tony Blair has stated 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.' (11/03) The actual number of
corpses found is closer to 5,000. [6]

Many of these mass graves have turned out to be all men (Iraqi enemy perhaps?).
Those which contain women and children often seem to be little more than the massive collateral damage any brutal war inflicts upon a population.

However even if Saddam killed 183,000 Kurdish enemy they were…
1. Not his own people, rather a different ethnic group, proclaiming to be independent, who were his self-declared, armed and corrupted by Iranian the
enemy.
2. It’s nothing compared with 650,000 total deaths our liberation of Iraqi violence is thought to have cost (using research gathered over a year
ago) www.guardian.co.uk...news.independent.co.uk...
3. It was made worse by the West backing the Iranians, as it obviously put Iraq under far more pressure.
4. If we or most countries in the world faced the same situation (when fighting for our very existence) we may do the same. Most countries have a
track record of extreme brutality during war.
E.g. A Tokyo air-raid (thought to be the worlds deadliest) killed about 200,000
Source: alternativeperspective.blogspot.com...

United States air-raid killed or injured as
many as 200,000 people. It obliterated a quarter of all Tokyo's buildings, leaving more than a million people homeless.

Germany lost 3.5M troops in combat plus another 1.5M murdered/starved as POWs. At least 600,000 civilians were killed in air raids. About 1M
civilians were killed during the vicious fighting through eastern Germany in 1945.

This is war in desperate circumstances, but is it a crime more than war itself may be a crime?
Like today’s Iraqis some of those German (and later Viennese) civilians were hit with white-phosphorus, a substance that burns flesh to burn, and
will burn under water due to oxygen contained in H20: en.wikipedia.org...

Few recall that US forces in Vietnam routinely threw prisoners from helicopters, burned them alive with white phosphorus, or wiped out entire
villages
without a second thought.

Behaving Like A Dictatorship Ourselves?
Unlike secular Arab leaders, Western leaders can’t say there would be anarchy if we behaved like a democracy. But it doesn’t stop them pushing the
boundaries…
1. www.prismwebcastnews.com... UK Refuses Entry To Iraq Death Toll Study Author:

After publication, the prime minister’s
official spokesman said that the Lancet’s study “was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate.”

2. BUT Downing Street Advisors: Study “Follows Best Practice”
Documents obtained under the freedom of information act by the BBC show that news.bbc.co.uk...

Ministry of
Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".

Saddam Hussein’s Invasion of Kuwait…
1. The Iran-Iraq war had only recently finished when Kuwait began to flood the world market with oil. Saddam Hussein warned Kuwait not to continue
flooding the market, or to continue with slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves... www.csun.edu...
However Kuwait confident of U.S protection continued anyway.

The oil price falls sent the Iraqi economy to fall into recession because it had large war debts to pay of. Also Saddam Hussein worried about how to
occupy the huge Iraq war military, and worried that the fall in economy could cause a coup against him (which would probably put in place a Shiite
Muslim Fundamentalist dictator). As (being much more of a U.S ally) Saddam was confident that the U.S would tolerate his Kuwait invasion. According to
a Ba’thist I’ve met (who was in Iraqi government at the time) the U.S actually encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait.Well behold I find a
bit on the internet about this…www.rense.com...archontan.blogspot.com...
And further down here: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So, in 1991, the US tricked Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by promising they would not object, then invaded Iraq, thereby having a
convenient war to keep the military budget inflated.

The proposal was for Kuwait to allow Iraq to remove two Kuwaiti islands that were blocking the entrance to Iraq’s
seaport. The islands were barren islands that were owned by Kuwait; they did nothing for Kuwait and they blocked the precious little access that Iraq
had to the sea.

The opinion of James Adkins, attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from1963-1965 and later U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was that the Bush
administration, most likely President Bush himself, placed a call to King Fahd advising him to have the Saudi Sultan withdraw his
suggestion.

And according to a Ba’th Party Member I met there was more than one reason for wanting to get Saddam to invade. Apparently U.S Iraqi-Iranian support
was attached to 3 major conditions…
1. Stop supporting the Palestinians in any way against Israel
2. Stop trying to spread Ba’thist ideology outside of Iraq through whatever means.
3. (Ironically) Give up all claim to Kuwait.

Why would the U.S oppose a secular, pro-western movement like the Ba’th party I asked?
Because one of its goals is to create a united Arab world based on America. This doesn’t just create an additional super power, but one which
might be capable of destroying Israel
Yep these insane fears are in spite of the Ba’th Party movement being Western thought oriented, and Israel having a nuclear bomb (therefore able to
bring about Mutually Assured Destruction should push really come to shrove).
If our policy is rational, it follows the white House prefers the likes of Iran; because thanks to they’re chosen policy that’s what they now
have, when they could have just had a secular Saddam style other progressive countries (that thanks to our stupid chosen policy aren’t at all
progressive).

The Ever So Recent History of Iraq’s Claim To Kuwait
Kuwait (like Iraq) is a British colonial creation (Iraq 1932), Kuwait (1968) but Kuwait is founded on lands that were the Iraqi peoples Mesopotamian
territory for 4000 years: members.aol.com...
Even before Saddam and his Ba’th Party; President Qasim of Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait in 1961 invoking Iraq’s Ottoman claims. Only when
British military support turned up did Iraq back down. www.britains-smallwars.com...

London used its still preponderant imperial might to conclude a number of treaties of protection with local Arab chieftains. Kuwait was one of
the British protectorates established at this time, in 1899.

Kuwait’s boundaries were artificially created by the British to include Iraqi oil as part of a strategy of divide and rule… www.csun.edu...

British Domination
As the victors of World War I, France and Britain dismantled the Ottoman Empire and the Arab nation for their own colonial purposes. The Iraq
Petroleum Company was created in 1920 with 95% of the shares going to Britain, France, and the U.S. In order to weaken Arab nationalism, Britain
blocked Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf by severing the territorial entity, "Kuwait" from the rest of Iraq in 1921 and 1922. This new British
colony, Kuwait, was given artificial boundaries with no basis in history or geography. King Faisal I of the new Iraqi state ruled under British
military oversight, but his administration never accepted the amputation of the Kuwait district and the denial of Iraqi access to the Persian
Gulf.

Gulf War One Itself
1. Once Saddam had invaded Kuwait he felt unable to withdraw in case this caused an uprising and brought down his secular regime.
2. Saddam would have withdrawn from Kuwait anyway if we would let him “save face”
3. The war ended up initially costing at least 22,000 Iraqi lives www.pbs.org...
4. As it happened it ended up causing the Shiite uprising after the war anyway, which the CIA ignited by inciting Shiites to rebel through their
radio station. en.wikipedia.org...

However U.S support never materialised; because even back then they were still smart enough to realise that a free Iraq would pave the way for an
Iraqi government almost identical to Iran.

At the end of the war Saddam (reluctantly) agreed to allow the U.N to disarm Iraq of its WMD’s.
All WMD’s were got rid of by 1991. The 1995 “find” is in without fact; it’s another lie supported only by rumours
www.tinyrevolution.com... Husayn Kamil head of the WMD programme denied Saddam had continued it. Even CNN can’t come up
with much: www.cnn.com...

The sanctions…
These impoverished Iraq, causing infant death mortality to rocket, power cuts, and other numerous shortages.
Yet despite this the Iraqi government was able to produce more electricity than is available in today’s Baghdad and for obviously far less money.
Also following the years after 1991 Iraq’s economy actually grew (so be it solely, and never to where it was before sanctions).
Yet as even anti-Saddam Shiites will say: Iraq was better under Saddam than current dysfunctional, corrupt, or bigoted, foreign enforced democracy.

Conclusion…
Saddam was no Kim Jim of North Korea who hangs onto WMD’s regardless of his countries suffering, rather Saddam is a man who got rid of his WMD’s
to end his peoples suffering. These are facts, Saddam could have enjoyed a perfectly good personal standard of living as long as his government had
bullets and its military contained a small quantity of WMD material.
Many speculate whether or the United States would invade an Iraq armed with WMD’s.
The simple fact is that invading an Iraq armed with real WMD’s would also entail a real possibility of these WMD’s falling into the hands of
terrorists. The simple fact is that a “good” destination for many terrorists finding themselves in possession of a biological bomb would be
Israel. Just one germ bomb can kill millions; Israel only has a population of just over 6 million.
Nor would it necessarily (in reality) be the deposed regimes fault; the simple fact is that no government can be answerable to charges of failing to
control its weapons stockpile if it’s Command and Control has collapsed.
Perhaps this is the real reason why George Bush senior didn’t take out Saddam in 1991? Perhaps the United States wasn’t that keen on finding
itself in a situation where Israel has just been wiped of the map, by a terrorist who happened to be able to raid unarmed or barely armed national
warfare facility?
Perhaps the United States didn’t feel like occupying a country where Israel is contemplating a thermonuclear response, or perhaps it didn’t want
to (by occupying Iraq) deny Israel the opportunity to defend itself against further WMD terrorist attacks.
And it is a near certainty that without Saddam Iraq’s ethnically divided (and equally ethnically corruptible) military would have leaked WMD’s
(had it had more than a handful to leak). And had it not been for Saddam’s willingness to unilaterally disarm to meet his U.N obligations, and
follow (what he once believed) to be the route to Iraq’s economic prosperity; then Iraq would indeed have had plenty of WMD’s to leak.

Saddam was also no Kim Jong of North Korea for other reasons. His education system with its high literacy rate was on a long term mission to
abolishing Iraq’s religious fanaticalism. His government had even encouraged different religious to mix and live next door to each other; and as
long as Iraq’s police was under his watch it had worked.
His government (whilst economically liberal regarding private enterprise and private ownership) was socialist as far as distributing Iraq’s oil
wealth to poor (through things like food, water, clothing, petrol and university subsidies). The truth is that his regime delivered political
stability not just through oppression but by the kind of wealth distribution lacking in much of the Middle East today (like where in Saudi Arabia
almost all the oil wealth is owned by an elite few, whilst the rest of the population tend to live in grinding poverty). In this way Saudi Arabia’s
political stability is built more on oppression than Saddam’s Ba’th party because it continues to lack this kind of basic socialism.
By distributing oil wealth Saddam’s economic policy had proven not just good for political stability but for economic prosperity as a wealthy middle
class supports a healthy upper class; and despite the Iran-Iraq war this had continued developing at a fast paste until Kuwait’s flooding of the
global oil market sent a war debt saddled (but otherwise prosperous) Iraq into economic recession.

Compared with the anarchy of Iraq today, the 650,000 lost Iraqi lives that dwarfs 24-32 years of “Saddam crimes” I believe that Saddam has
continued to show himself from beyond the grave as a perfect martyr not just for Iraq; but for type of government a more wise U.S would seek to
impose on the Middle.
Thanks to our interference during the Iran-Iraq war, and our anti-Ba’thist ambitions towards other nations (even when Saddam continued to be a
ally), it is Iran we today face as a WMD armed potential war adversary.
Wouldn’t it have been better to face Iraq?
It is Saddam’s Ba’th party which showed that (although it once possessed WMD’s) it never used them against the West. Saddam could had made it so
our invasion would leave WMD’s at the disposal of terrorists, but instead all his rule left was an Iraq ready to rapidly recover from U.N sanctions
(which we have since; well and truly screwed up).
And whilst water may be important to Israel, would the effects of a more prosperous Iraq not serve interests better? As long as Israel retains WMD’s
all Saddam’s know it has a right to exist. Would Israel rather be an owasisous in the Middle of the Dessert, or part of a giant, and generally prosperous (as well as peaceful) economic
landscape?

Saddam was not just the right leader of nation where the majority still believe in stoning women to death for religious crimes; but remains a role
model for all nations where women believes these things and where democracy remains a mistake against the kind of stable, and economically
prosperous vision we would (in my view rightfully) want to see throughout this world. Such a shame then we oppose Ba’thist type ideologies
evenwherever it’s the common people who declare themselves enemies of what we demand (and they would frankly be better of
with).

Democracy has a place, and that’s where the people do not hate us, and where they do not oppose our world view (too much, of course). Because
we can adapt to them.
But we do not need invading armies to enforce an “imperial vision”; just to spend a fraction of those resources backing the right people, at the
right times, in the right places as our friends; intelligence services exist and can be improved.
This is why America rivalled the way of the British Empire, and could still avoid the fate of the British Empire, if only it would not always look
(and most tragically) totally look to democracy as a way of somehow solving almost all our problems.

Well 36 views, 3 flags and 24 hours ago Liberal1984 threw down a challenge for some one to debunk him/her. So far no one has picked up Liberal1984's
gauntlet. Seeing I’m FSME for this forum I thought I would up the stakes a bit. I’m going to offer 1500 points to anyone who takes Liberal1984
challenge with the first well written reply/rebuttal.

Imagine you're a dictator. Your main object in life is to preserve your power and pass it on to your nominated successors, whoever they might be.

If you can make your subjects happy, this becomes a good deal easier.

And when you're lucky enough to be sitting on one of the world's largest fossil fuel deposits, keeping them happy becomes a good deal easier,
too.

So: coddle your subjects with free education, health care and various subsidies. No skin off your nose; with those petrodollars rolling in, you can
afford to do these things and still have plenty of money left over for strings of palaces, armies and war matérial and just about anything else your
heart desires. So why not?

Of course, your money might be better spent building up a manufacturing and services infrastructure and the apparatus of a properly-functioning modern
state, so your country would have something to fall back on when the oil ran out. But that would be a little harder to do. Besides, doing it would
empower your people more than it would you - modern states are difficult to tyrannize - so what would be the good of it?

Distracting the plebs from your tyranny with bread and circuses is a trick at least as old as Nero. Would you call him an excellent leader?

Secularism

When the biggest internal threat to your security as a tyrant happens to come from religious fundamentalists, what do you do?

You promote secularism, of course.

All well and good for those - like you and I - who approve of it and consider it right and proper. But what if the majority of your people are
intensely religious, and feel oppressed because you prevent them from enjoying various religious freedoms to which they might legitimately consider
themselves entitled?

The happiness and felicity that Iraq's Shia majority enjoyed under Saddam's secular rule has been rather well illustrated by the events that
followed his departure, haven't they? Or would you argue that continued Saddam-style religious repression is the way forward for Iraq?

Foreign policy

Offered the Kurds a fair share of Iraq’s oil wealth (in proportion) to their population, and offered them autonomy... Saddam Hussein signed
the Kurdish autonomy agreement by himself on 11th of March 1970

The agreement broke down. The result was brutal fighting between the government and Kurdish groups and even Iraqi bombing of Kurdish villages in
Iran, which caused Iraqi relations with Iran to deteriorate.

Great foreign policy. However, since Iran was, at the time, ruled by a fellow-tyrant, the Kurds were on to a loser:

After Saddam had negotiated the 1975 treaty with Iran, the Shah withdrew support for the Kurds, who suffered a total defeat.

As for this...

Unfortunately the deal fell through when Iran decided it would bribe the Kurds to cause trouble for Saddam being an ally of
America!!!

...it is nonsense. The leader of Iran at the time was 'Shah' Reza Pahlavi, a great friend of the United States. You're forgetting your history.

Sadly Iran did not keep it’s end of the bargain (although maybe it did and the Turks bribed the Kurds) either way the Kurds continued to get
bribed and armed, and the Iraqis were convinced Iran was behind it).

Another unsubstantiated statement - in fact, you're admitting that you don't really know the truth of this story.

Never mind. Let's get on to the Iran-Iraq war, shall we?

Saddam gave Iran a section of the river that runs between the two countries on the condition they stop bribing the Kurds to cause
trouble.

Ah yes, the Shatt al-Arab dispute that started the war... By the way (for readers who may be getting confused), we're in 1980 now, and Iran has a new
leader, between whom and dear old Saddam there is little love lost. Here's
Wikipedia again:

Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas — hostile to his secular rule — were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite
population.

There had also been bitter enmity between Saddam and Khomeini since the 1970s. Khomeini, having been exiled from Iran in 1964, took up residence in
Iraq, at the Shi'ite holy city of An Najaf. There he involved himself with Iraqi Shi'ites and developed a strong, worldwide religious and political
following. Under pressure from the Shah, who had agreed to a rapprochement between Iraq and Iran in 1975, Saddam agreed to expel Khomeini in
1978.

So we see that the Shatt al-Arab dispute was just a pretext.

Even so, it was Saddam, not Khomenei, who started the war, as you admit.

This caused Saddam to launch an offensive against Iran...

I won't go into the details of America's and other countries' involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, since it isn't relevant to your point about the
'excellency' of Saddam's rule.

Gassing the Kurds

We've seen those sites and read those statements. The 'evidence' they submit cannot hope to stand against the thousands of eyewitness accounts and
other testimony. Meanwhile,

I’ve have had the extraordinary privilege of discussing with one former member of Iraq’s Ba’th Party why, in particular the Anfal
campaign was so brutal... The Kurdish fighters could not be arrested by a conventional police force... war is costly, and Iran Iraq war had been long,
Iraq simply did not have enough precision weapons to carry out precision bombing. Therefore in the interests of natural survival they were forced to
resort to brutal techniques.

Yes, this certainly is a testimony to the 'excellency' of Saddam's regime.

Invading Kuwait

Territorial claims of four thousand years' provenance are rubbish.

Kuwait is a sovereign state, recognized as such by other sovereign states and the United Nations.

You allude to one of the reasons why Saddam invaded here:

The Iran-Iraq war had only recently finished when Kuwait began to flood the world market with oil. Saddam Hussein warned Kuwait not to continue
flooding the market, or to continue with slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves.

The 'slant drilling' is disputed. The fact that a diminishing world oil price would have threatened Saddam's subsidies and free public services,
thereby causing dangerous discontent among ordinary Iraqis, is not.

The other reason for Saddam's attack on Kuwait was that Kuwait was a stepping-stone to the greater prize, the gigantic oil resources of Saudi Arabia.
Saddam wanted to make himself the Oil King.

Well, that pretty much does it, Liberal1984. The rest of your post is mostly about how bad other people are, as if their iniquities somehow
excuse those of the monstrous Saddam. Sorry, that cock just won't fight, I'm afraid. However, I will go so far as to agree with one statement
you make in your summing-up:

Saddam could have enjoyed a perfectly good personal standard of living as long as his government had bullets.

Thankyou Astyanax
Of course Saddam’s reasons for the health, education, and benefits to the poor were to do with regime security, and passing on a country to his
successors in a better state than he found it. I think it’s these qualities which makes these things so ideology attractive almost anywhere.
For example: In the West we have these things because if you lack them too much, then you get an awful lot of people wanting to vote-bring about
Communism-extreme socialism. And obviously the rich-elite (and their friends) get targeted by criminals too (something that’s quite uncomfortable
even if you’re well protected).
Likewise if you pass back a country in a worst state than you inherited it to the electorate you get kicked out, or if you’re a dictatorship at
least plenty of people wanting to.

Unlike today’s democratically elected government (which being democratic) represents terrorist, bigots, and other fanatics, as well as purely
financial corruption, Saddam was able to actually deliver these things.

Of course, your money might be better spent building up a manufacturing and services infrastructure and the apparatus of a
properly-functioning modern state, so your country would have something to fall back on when the oil ran out. But that would be a little harder to do.
Besides, doing it would empower your people more than it would you - modern states are difficult to tyrannize - so what would be the good of
it?

But Saddam did do this!! Between about 1972 and mid 1990 the Iraqi economy was in boom mode. You may have noticed in TV footage that almost anywhere
from Baghdad to Basra is full of a lot of decaying derelict shops, warehouses, the odd factory, service station ect. You may have also noticed that a
lot of these buildings appear to have constructed somewhere between the 1970’s-1991. That’s because they were!!! In fact pretty much nothing
(baring the smaller, ancient city centres) predates 1968 the year the Bath party took power.
Also you’re “argument-theory” that Saddam wanted education, but to keep Iraqis in semi educated state to prevent “empowering” them to
undermine the regime falls into complete nonsense when you consider how well university education was subsidised under Saddam. Something that’s a
bit beyond teaching people enough so that they can read street signs, so that they can drive a car-truck.
In fact the Ba’th party felt (not without reason) the more educated, the more prosperous people where the better they would accept the regime.
To be truthful it’s true there was deliberate discrimination against ethnic-tribal groups outside the Sunnis, who refused to join the Ba’th
Party, and who wanted to progress beyond a higher level (one way or the other). But this is because refusing to join the Ba’th Party says an
awful lot about them i.e. that empowering them will indeed undermine the regime.
However this can and was justified (even morally) on the grounds that empowering them, to undermine Iraq’s political unity, would lead to exactly
the same kind of chaos we see today. I.e. that empowering them not only undermines the regime but subsequently leads to a route where the ability of
future Iraqi government to provide Iraq prosperity is permanently undermined.
If it was the West we wouldn’t need such discrimination but that’s because we aren’t exactly a tribal society, with religious fundamentalism
that promises to bring an economy as bad as communism, and a level of lack of respect for individuality equal to any fascism.

On Secularism…

The happiness and felicity that Iraq's Shia majority enjoyed under Saddam's secular rule has been rather well illustrated by the events that
followed his departure, haven't they?

What you mean like how a clear majority of (even them), now say their life was better under Saddam? (Even though the “primitives” got what they
wanted i.e. Saddam gone).

Or would you argue that continued Saddam-style religious repression is the way forward for Iraq?

Absolutely!! Because it’s not so much religious as secular. To be frank Saddam was never that bothered about religion people followed, providing
they kept their religion out of politics. In fact thanks to Saddam oppression of fundamentalists Christians were both safe and tolerated under
Iraq.

In my world view even when the majority of people believe in something fundamentalists doesn’t mean democracy should prevail.
You could be that sexually liberal Kurdish girl who was being stoned to death by her family-village on that video available on the internet. www.dailymail.co.uk...
Apparently you can still see it here if you’re logged in: www.youtube.com.../watch%3Fv%3D77-6OMB50Vo

Anyway I'm sure all 3000 (or whatever) of the people taking part thought it was a great idea that she should be stoned to death. However this to me
doesn’t make her wrong, about it being obviously wrong to happen to her. Even when you have (as we do) the majority of a continent supporting these
kind of practices my stance remains defiantly opposed.
Now there are many in West who advocate a kind of moral appeasement; i.e. tolerate it whenever the majority of people (or even close to it) endorse
these kind of fundamentalist practices. However I believe that even if they were half right, it could only be if such a culture didn’t put
them on a collision course with the West.
Such a culture does put them on a collision course with other nations, because only their small part of the world is a backward (or should I be
politically correct and say “forward-thinking enough”?) to share a compatibility with these sort of practices being carried out.
The indirect consequences of these incompatibility with the rest of mankind has shown itself to time and time again to indirectly result in
confrontation; often resulting in war-sanctions (since fascist Muslim fundamentalism encourages dictatorships far less negotiable than secular ones
like Saddam had)
War in particular means even the tolerance of the fundamentalists practices, makes it against their own interests (through affecting their living
standards) (for all but an extreme, extreme minority of bigoted fundamentalists.

I’ve long said that one of the most tragic-disastrous current mistakes in Western thinking is that our leaders seem to think that because
democracies tend house secular people, democracy can cause secularism. Actually democracy can only exist where there is secularism, that’s why we
find democracies house secular people. Otherwise (if it is a democracy) it’s the type so incompatible with our own (e.g. Iran’s) it’s more than
capable of enabling war between the two civilisations-cultures.

Given that more Iraqis may have died in the last 4-5 years than under the entire decades-years under Saddam, I believe Saddam has been vindicated in
believing that his “brutal” form of government was less brutal than the real nature of any applicable alternatives. By anyone’s standards
it’s the consequence of trying to apply a Western belief system, with its own Western political system, that has killed far more than the coalition
could ever have. And I believe it will continue to kill as long as it lasts after the occupation is gone (though “perhaps?” thankfully that
doesn’t look too long).

Foreign Policy…

As for this...

Quote: Originally Posted by Liberal198
Unfortunately the deal fell through when Iran decided it would bribe the Kurds to cause trouble for Saddam being an ally of America!!!

...it is nonsense. The leader of Iran at the time was 'Shah' Reza Pahlavi, a great friend of the United States. You're forgetting your
history.

You’re quite right I was getting my history confused there.
All I know is that…
1. The first deal did fall down because the Kurds rejected the autonomy, and fair oil share deal. Bribes were responsible… as is passed over
here Originally from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...-colonial_era

In addition to Iraq's fomenting of
separatism in Iran's Khuzestan and Iranian Balochistan provinces, both countries encouraged separatist activities by Kurdish nationalists in the
other country.

(this is the correct time frame by the way). I was indeed wrong about the reasons being ideological at this stage.
Instead it’s all to do with long lasting disputes over the other countries territory.
2. In 1975 Iraq signed over part of the Shatt al Arab waterway in a deal for peace. www.infoplease.com...
And: Originally from Encartaencarta.msn.com...

At peace talks in Algiers, Algeria, in
1975, Iran agreed to abandon its support for the Kurdish rebellion in return for an agreement by Iraq to share the Shatt al Arab waterway with
Iran.

3. In 1978 things for once looked very good between the two nations… Originally from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...-colonial_era

The relationship between Iranian and Iraqi governments briefly improved in 1978, when Iranian agents in Iraq discovered a pro-Soviet coup
d'etat against the Iraqi government.

4. But Iran’s bribes to Kurdish separatists intensified after the Iranian Revolution (1979). This was indeed ideological. Originally from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

In turn the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed Muslims, particularly the Shias in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, who he saw as oppressed,
could and should follow the Iranian example, rise up against their governments to join a united Islamic republic.[4] Khomeini and Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries despised Saddam's secularist, Arab nationalist Ba'athist regime in particular as un-Islamic and "a puppet of Satan,"[5] and called
on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and his regime.

And you know what he meant by “puppet of Satan”. This is where my previous bit about peace between Iraq and Iran being almost impossible comes in
not least because of Saddam’s American society values, and friendship with America.
5. Though Iraq Invaded Iran first, Iran started shelling Iraq first. www.notablebiographies.com...

Secret pro-Iranian organizations committed acts of destruction in Iraq, while Iranians began shelling Iraqi border towns in 1980. In September
1980 the Iraqi army crossed the Iranian border and seized Iranian territory thus beginning a long, costly, and bitter war that continued into the late
1980s.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Gassing the Kurds
We've seen those sites and read those statements. The 'evidence' they submit cannot hope to stand against the thousands of eyewitness accounts and
other testimony.

I prefer to believe a former director of the CIA than some Kurd in a mud hut who’s obviously bitter about Saddam, and where the only thing they can
prove for certain is that they were gassed. Frankly I don’t care as I’ve shown that the Kurds were taking Iranian money and Iranian weapons to
fight Iraqi soldiers, in a war in which both sides used chemical weapons, and which both sides were desperate. The bit about my post about “how bad
other people are” just goes to show that (according to even recent history) almost any other nation would unleash the same brutality if they were in
the same desperate situation. Maybe not with chemical weapons, but then cyanide gas is a lot more human than dying from the blood loss frequently
caused by conventional weapons.
Interestingly I don’t believe the Iraqi side possessed cyanide gas, though the Iranian did.

Both sides used gas at Halabja, Pelletiere suggested.
"The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran
was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."

Also I personally see no reason why Saddam wouldn’t have admitted to it at the time. It made little shock waves in the media (of the time), and the
U.S was still his friend, and besides it’s war, he hardly had any favourable credibility with the Iraqi Kurds by this time anyway. But Saddam has
always denied he had anything to do with it.

On Kuwait…
But it’s was formed (as an independent state) out of the British occupation of Iraq through the British Mandate of Mesopotamia granted to the empire
through the Legaue of Nations after the first world war. In fact it only got formal independence from Britain

On June 19, 1961, Britain recognized Kuwait's independence. Six days later, however, Iraq renewed its claim, which was now rebuffed by first
British, then Arab League forces. It was not until 1963 that a new Iraqi regime formally recognized both Kuwait's independence and, subsequently, its
borders, while continuing to press for access to the islands. This was the year when Kuwait became member of the United Nations Organization.

It is also a fact that the areas borders where drawn by the British after an oil survey had been conducted, in order to include as much Iraqi oil
within Kuwait’s borders as possible. This is why Kuwait is so massively oil rich (it’s not actually natural good fortune).
However I’ll dig that up later as I'm getting tired now.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.